Brilliant...let's take a poll on which number is bigger!

While the "overwhelming evidence" for human caused climate change remains underwhelming, in ether case, I'll do what helps the most people to limit greenhouse gases: stop consuming beef (since "we the people" have little to no power over the major causes of climate change: U.S.A.'s and China's governments).

Still, while it's worth doing what we can to diminish greenhouse gases, it's probably wise to get a better understanding of the meteorological conditions affecting the planet from sources other than televised comedy shows.

(Surely, someone somewhere has an explanation, say, for this, but I doubt televised comedy shows have the time, expertise, or attention spans to adequately address a complex issue).

Climate oscillation.

There is. It's the telegraph, who are ideologically opposed to global warming and just so there's zero ambiguity here...

THEY ARE FUCKING LYING

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

100% of all climate change scientists that agree that it is real, agree.

Settled Science!

You completely misread my post (big surprise). This is another one of those distinctions that make no pragmatic difference. What does distinguishing between"believers" and "deniers" do for cleaning the air (and cleaning the environment)? Do "believers" contribute less to smog, greenhouse gasses, pollution, etc.? I remember driving to NYC from Boston and noticing the filthy brown/grey cloud enveloping the city as visible as you approached it. Is that because all NYC dwellers are "climate change deniers?" How about the L.A. smog? These are real problems, much more so than some "climate change believers" whose predictive models keep proving to be inaccurate.

Of course, as is pointed out here, "denier" is simply a shaming slur, and "climate change" is yet another tool in the hypocrite's toolbox to "prove" how much we need the rulers to save you from the weather.

Meteorology has many many variables that need to be considered, making it next-to-impossible to conduct experiments under controlled conditions in order to prove or falsify your theories. The pragmatic response then, is to ask what are you (going to) do(ing) about it (with it being whatever the article says)?

(In other words, it looks like the Prius came into being about 135 years too late.)

Bottom line is, if "man-made catastrophic climate change" is not happening, then society needs to stop listening to politicians and other hypocrites. If "man-made catastrophic climate change" is happening, then society needs to stop listening to politicians and other hypocrites if it wants to put a stop to it. And also take a good look at their own behaviors and contributions to waste and pollution because "belief" or not makes ZERO DIFFERENCE; only actual behavior makes a difference.

There is really no consensus that I can find as to whether the oceans are warming up consistently, whether that has to do with atmospheric conditions, and whether greenhouse gasses are the cause (if indeed it is happening).

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Haha.. a .gov link is about as unreliable as you can get!

I live in the Bay Area. Go to Whole Foods around here, and you can see that it runs on solar power. Go to the DMV or to city hall or any of the other state-run facilities and you can see that they don't (but instead are major contributors to the waste and pollution they purportedly "regulate"). Anyone who really cares about the environment should no doubt become an anarchist and work towards abolishing the state. All of them.

(Surprisingly, in Texas, too, the state is a bit less "crony" when it comes to their energy companies. That is to say, citizens actually have a CHOICE between several energy companies they can use. A friend who recently moved there -- and who is one of those few people who genuinely cares about the environment regardless of the "science" -- told me how pleased she was that she could select a provider that uses wind power to generate the electricity.)

Still, scientificconsensusisdubious.

(Note that the 97% statistic remains unclear as to whether it is 97% of 75? or of 65? Or less? The fact that the 97% consensus paper is false, however, does not mean that "climate change" is or is not happening. Only that that is a bogus statistic.)

The tiger doesn't care if you believe in him, or even if you manage to convince me he isn't there; he'll still eat us both.

This is the paper that is being cited, and you'll note that if you read it, you'll see that the experts had no position as to whether "man-made global warming is occurring" or not. They don't know and so, as scientists, they don't make any claims one way or the other. Of the minority who thinks or claims that they "know," most said that it is occurring.

That is totally different from saying "97% of all climate experts agree" on whatever... But, y'know, reading may be too much work for most people. If you are truly concerned about "climate change," then reduce/eliminate your own carbon footprint. Become vegetarian, walk and take public transportation, reuse bags, bottles, and containers, etc.. If you are not concerned about it, then you might as well ignore the whole topic and let the meteorologists do what they do.

Yes, that is what I said here.

The problem with arguing with deniers is simple: they deny any and all evidence presented.

That, and they're constantly surprised it gets cold in winter.

Actually, I didn't.

You'll not that I only quoted part of your post. You asked for an explanation of a specific article. I provided one. That's it.

Meanwhile, you say that we need to do something about AGW, then call into question its validity. I'm glad you're willing to do something about it, but you're not helping anyone by bringing incredibly spurious data points and engaging in anti-government paranoia.

Congratulations on making your point incredibly poorly.

HA HA HA!
Congrats, even climate deniers who get millions in funding stopped claiming that a long time ago. Denying basic physics is a bit harder, you see.

Also, I love how The Telegraph (a.k.a. the-evil-media-are-all-liars-except-when-it-suits-you) is somehow a credible source, but the NASA is not. You know. The NASA. That organization that put people on the Moon, somehow would know less science than some journo.

You seem to be one special kind of genius, we're really interested in your views, could you please fill in this quick poll?

Which number is bigger:
* 5
* 15

Without any kind of malice or hatred, i tell you that scientists *know* that humans are causing climate change. You will not find the scientific community in any kind of debate.

What the government and corporations do with the information is an entirely different matter. They lie, manipulate, cheat and steal and use it as a tool if they can. But don't question the science, because the science is there for you to see on the website. NASA have a .gov related domain probably because they are one of the most important scientific bodies on the planet and need the kind of internet protection and security that the government can provide. They need the protection or NASA goes offline and with it the base of communications for the majority of space operations.

Anything NASA does will be scientifically sound because the entire world community of scientists would never stand for it, they'd be a laughing stock for trying. Don't forget that the scientific community includes Russia for example - or any "enemy of the west" you choose. All research is available to everyone and anyone, so if you think NASA is somehow corrupt and publishes bullshit then why haven't equally corrupt russian scientists exposed and scored points off it?

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

The evidence is there, and the scientific community believes in it. That includes universities full of teachers and students, it includes any scientist that adheres to the scientific method, anywhere in the world.

I suppose they will never upload the campaign finance video......sigh...that would be a choice sift.

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/now-just-001-percent-of-climate-scientists-reject-global-warming

And you had no point except to engage in ad hominem. Congratulations on lowering the bar on stupid.

You're a fucking idiot... There ya go, THAT was an example of an ad hominem. Now you can recognise it for future reference.

You asked for an explanation, I gave you one. I didn't even insult your dumb ass, I said that the Telegraph was lying and then I provided you a link which explained it.

Clearly I should have used smaller words.

edit: and now you're randomly downvoting my videos out of pettiness. Wow, I really must have gotten to you. How sad for you.

Which is the classic last stand of the denier, conspiracy theorist or indeed religious person, and one that is essentially unassailable.

"I believe what I believe and nothing you say or demonstrate can change it..."

You don't actually provide any counter evidence, you just put down the evidence as completely unreliable because of it's source. It's a very effective way to convince yourself that the debate is being balanced if you can knock down some of those 97% who overwhelmingly disagree with you...

The problem is that while only 3% of scientists refuse to be convinced, a very large portion of very powerful people and politicians agree with them, and have a disproportionate amount of power to stymie change. Perhaps they don't even ideologically agree, they may just not care if it effects their profits...

Either way, the debate goes round and nothing gets done. Stalling is as successful as denying...

Whether you believe or not, the most effective way to get something done is to put our environment before our profit margins anyway.

Nah, not surprised it gets cold in winter, but baffled that no matter if its get very cold, normal or warm, its always climate changes fault.
That is completely against basic science, because their claims are obviously not falsifiable.

Yeah ya did-"I didn't even insult your dumb ass" is about as ad hom as you can get and you even prefaced the insult with another less-than-cleverly cloaked ad-hom in the opener-

A clue to the personality behind any passionate, ego-driven enemy of reasonable discourse? Beware of anyone who begins a sentence with the word, "Actually."

Back to reading comprehension, kiddo. Sadly, you are a reflection of what a terrible educational system does to individuals. . . and a particularly sad case.

Again, my condolences to your family.

Or, like, you know, you can read what I posted... Or not. Seems like you're arguing with a strawman, and not against anything I posted.

Are you a climate scientist? If not, then I'll continue to give more credence to the information provided by actual climate scientists, some of whom are in favor of the notion of "human-caused climate change" while many also skeptical.

Bottomline: who cares? None of the people who are attacking me here are going to do anything of any impact on the climate. It's just "talk, talk, talk" anyway. Do you buy plastic? If so, then who cares what you think about the environment?

These are not rhetorical or trivial questions! I expect answers! (not really)

Pragmatically, are you personally contributing to clean air or are you contributing to smog? I walk to work, I don't have children, I don't consume beef, and when I do use vehicles, I take public transportation and drive a hybrid. What do you do? What are your theoretical opinions contributing to anything of value? If you just want something more to freak out about (without actually contributing anything in any positive way), then you can enjoy your worry and stress and get your panties in a bunch on videosift. I have no interest in it.


And speaking of "geniuses:"

@9547bis said: "Denying basic physics is a bit harder, you see."

So, other than parroting something you read on a government website, can you in fact explain the "physics" you are so convinced of? What are the "physics" that "prove" man-made greenhouse gases are the reason for global warming? And why do the warming models invariably prove to be inaccurate (according to physics)?

So, you know which is "bigger" between 5 and 15. I'm not as impressed with yourself as you seem to be. But perhaps you can explain the "physics errors" in this report?

Or this one.

This section specifically deals with the "physical science." What is it that you know that the experts don't. Perhaps you can demonstrate the scientific errors with which you disagree, and point out where they're inaccurate?

Or perhaps you don't understand anything that you aren't repeating from what some government hack tells you...

Something you failed to recognize is that "data" requires a rationalist theory by which to interpret it. Many people have not been getting that kind of education (as Google's HR knows), so the "data" can then be interpreted any which way to suit pre-conditioned biases and vested interests. That's not "science." In fact, that's where so-called "authorities" come in: the propagandists and those paid to tell "the people" how to interpret the "data."

Who amongst those taking issue with my posts (@dannym3141) follows this epistemological "method" of reading the "data" and interpreting it, and who simply repeats what some "authority" tells them is the case?

(And lest you think "the people" are innocent victims, know that they seem more like willing participants; the extent to which they can be "victimized" depends on the extent of their own personal vices: anger, greed, pride, envy, laziness, etc. I'm looking at you @ChaosEngine.)

Then I point you to somewhere which requires reading:

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/now-just-001-percent-of-climate-scientists-reject-global-warming

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/

http://www.independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/only-1-of-9136-recent-peer-reviewed-authors-rejects-global-warming,6094

I could go all day. But, of course, this study isn't without it's detractors, who honestly do have a claim, if substantiated. (I've read the math on it, and the 97% is indeed an accurate sum, however, it is misleading in the sense that it only accounts for papers that state a stance and don't outright deny climate change is solely anthropogenic.)

Perhaps you found your info on Forbes.com, a decidedly unbiased site whose solely interested in getting to the bottom of the facts, regardless of political ideology. (sarcasm)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/22/after-oklahoma-city-tragedy-shameless-politicians-unsheath-global-warming-card/

Or we could try a different route and try a group dedicated to statistics:

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

"Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure."

Now, we should work on your use of the word "some".

"some
səm/Submit
determiner
1.
an unspecified amount or number of.
"I made some money running errands"
2.
used to refer to someone or something that is unknown or unspecified.
"she married some newspaper magnate twice her age"
pronoun
1.
an unspecified number or amount of people or things.
"here are some of our suggestions"
2.
at least a small amount or number of people or things.
"surely some have noticed"
adverbNORTH AMERICANinformal
1.
to some extent; somewhat.
"when you get to the majors, the rules change some""

Don't worry, none of those came from a .gov link.

blah blah blah.. who cares?

Are you a vegetarian yet?

Hmm.. 0.01 percent of about 12,000 climate scientists "reject" that climate change is man made? Is that so? And the other 99.09% all agree that it is man-made? Is this a fact?
(BTW, are you a vegetarian? If not, then you probably don't care very much about the issue. Are you also an anarchist? Because, if not, you're supporting the states, which are the worst polluters throughout the world. If you are truly concerned about climate change -- and even if you just want clean air -- you should actually do something about it... you know.. rather than freaking out simply for the sake of it. Of course you're welcome to do that on your own or with all the other supposedly concerned individuals who none-the-less pollute as much or more than any man-made climate change "denier").

If the state got out of the way, we'd be much closer if not already there with clean energy sources. Man-made climate change or not, who really likes to smell car exhaust? Or driving behind some dirty truck? Because, however convinced you may be about man-made climate change, people are not going to stop driving, or riding on airplanes, or buying plastic (and I doubt you're an exception, but I could be wrong about that). And people are not going to stop using heat or stop having children either.

Belief in man-made climate change alone is irrelevant. California with all its supposed "environmentalism" is one of the dirtiest states when it comes to air quality. So really, what difference does it make that 74% or whatever number of climate scientists think there is evidence that substantiates man-made climate change and 26% do not?
(And by the way, a scientific truth is not based on a majority vote).

If you're not making these changes in your own life, then perhaps you could just write a paper and send it to "some" climate change scientists for peer review.

I'm all in favor of not polluting.

Check the chronology, that came AFTER the claim that he made the ad hom, as an effort to explain what ad hom is.
A clue to the personality behind any passionate, ego-driven enemy of reasonable discourse? Beware of anyone who names themselves 'annoying little f*cking thing', as you can be sure they are only trying their hardest to be annoying, not informative or understanding.

I feel like most if not all of these are rhetorical, and you don't really want answers to your queries, but I'll offer some anyway....
I'm not attacking you, but will attack your position that AGW is a fraud.
I have done the MOST impactful thing one can do to minimize one's footprint, I didn't have children. I also grow most of my own food (but I do still eat meat, mostly chickens), I have solar power and water, and I drive far less than 5K miles per year. All that said, I am still probably contributing to the CO2 rise when all the math is done, but far less than most first worlders, and not at all when I'm gone.
You can't really be asking for a physics class here in the comment section, can you? Put simply, CO2 reflects more heat back towards the earth, trapping it in our 'system', making it hotter. It's not the only gas that does this, but it seems to be the most prevalent. The models prove to be imperfect because most of them don't take everything into account, for instance global dimming is rarely included in the math. While CO2 fluctuates naturally, the amount and rate of change due to human production is faster and greater than seen in nature, exponentially so. That means there's no time to adapt to the new environment and greater rate of species failure than in a natural extinction event.
I'll just point out that these articles still try to claim that warmer temperatures will create better growing conditions for crops, a claim that has already been proven wrong, as the problems with extreme weather and drought far outweigh the minimal benefits. That's enough right there for me to discount them, as is the fact that they come from sites dedicated to 'denying'. I didn't need to read any farther.
I, for one, do read the data and interpret it myself...and I come to the conclusion that most climate scientists are minimizing the issues, not exaggerating them, and that 'deniers' consistently ignore any data that doesn't fit their pre-conceived self-serving result.
It seems odd to me that the same people that want to rely on the slippery slope argument when dealing with social issues can't understand how far we've gone down that slope with our climate and deny there's a slope at all, no matter what the evidence shows.

I grow my own plants, well, as many as I can in an apartment. I bike everywhere I can. I eat some meat, but it consists very little of my diet. I produce a grocery bag of trash a week and most of that is organic waste.

Oh, you mean I should stop living in a first world country and go back to the stone-age! I get it now. You mean, I should completely and utterly give up everything because it may cause some pollution? Very illogical of you. I believe that is another one of those fallacies people are chiding you for.

By acknowledging the climate change is man-made, we can make better strides to actually bring about meaningful changes. One person reducing their carbon footprint isn't going to make much of a difference, but 350,000,000 people will.

Or, if politicians like Marco Rubio, who I shutter to think belongs to my state, would stop denying climate change we could actually have a dialogue about actual changes we can make, not ad reductionist claims like some people here on the sift are making. (I.E., you.)

Um, as for the state getting out of the way . . . The reason we have any clean air is because of their standards. For instance, it took a government mandate to eliminate lead from gasoline. Lead, which is highly toxic and one of the leading causes of anti-social behavior in convicted felons of violent crimes. I'm sure the free-market would have solved that issue on it own, however, in a much shorter period of time. *Thinks about that for a while.*

So you want to move away from the AGW and just say the climate is changing?

Basic premise flaw: if we humans aren't creating it, then there's nothing we can do. I give you, case in point, climate change deniers. Such as our Marco Rubio. Humans aren't causing it, therefore, we shouldn't impose any regulations on oil and gas. (I believe they did something similar back in the leaded gasoline days. May what short memories we have.)

By the way, saying since California has environmentalists that having the worst air pollution thus makes environmentalism a mute point would be called Fallacy of Composition. Because, let's not forget basic math: California population is greater than oh, I think 49 other states and contains the counties largest ports (major source of air pollution), the majority of the countries cars, the majority of semi trucks and trains originate here, they house dozens of oil refineries and there's this little itty bitty nascent issue of these Rocky Mountain things people keep talking about. Or, this "valley" people make fun of. I hear it's right next to these mountains.

So, really, the logical argument would be, because of the increasingly dire air pollution in California, more and more people are become environmentally aware and are slowly changing their habits to reduce future smog, but without increasing government intervention, larger corporations will continue their practice so long as it returns a profit. So, as a result, the larger corporations are spending millions lobbying politicians who have been passing favorable laws much to the angst of the growing environmental movement.

And no, that doesn't require overthrowing the government and going to an all berries diet. Nor me writing a book about my efforts.

To be sure, it does not take "studies" and "experts" to "prove" that smog turns healthy breathable air into unhealthy unbreathable air.

But, again, the consensus among proponents of man-made global warming pretty much all agree that the cause is greenhouse gases. And the consensus is also that cattle accounts for the main source of greenhouse gases. I honestly don't see how anyone concerned with man-made global warming can ignore this and, therefore, not be vegetarian (i.e., be congruent in their behaviors and beliefs).

I recommend reading "Hot Talk, Cold Science", endorsed by respected physicist the late Frederick Seitz, William Harper professor of Physics at Princeton, Richard Lindzen, meteorologist at MIT, written by physicist Fred Singer.

If you want to know where Prof. Singer is coming from, read this (and skeptics are not "deniers"- that's just a slur).

But before you freak out, let me restate, it matters not; clean air is good either way; do things that contribute to clean air (like end the state -- > good luck with that!).

(Better to read and have these discussions with actual working climate scientists than to bother with Internet pundits either way.)

There is also "consensus" as to the three types of "deniers." If anyone calls me a "denier," I'd be curious as to which of the three types of "deniers" you think I belong to (as indicated in the Singer article linked above). And you can then give me your scientific explanations as to why my stance is not valid.

This is something worth keeping in mind (from Singer):

"I have concluded that we can accomplish very little with convinced warmistas and probably even less with true deniers. So we just make our measurements, perfect our theories, publish our work, and hope that in time the truth will out."

The warmistas matter as much as the deniers. And the bottomline remains: what are you going to do about it anyway? As has been shown over and over, your "votes" don't count for much (or anything at all). So, what are you going to do about this (other than fume and get your panties in a twist on videosift)? The same is true with the "deniers." And the skeptics (i.e., true scientists).

Science also doesn't work by consensus. No real scientist will say otherwise. You either prove/falsify some hypothesis or you don't. You don't determine the truth in science by "consensus." Scientific consensus, as has been said, is itself unscientific.

There is no "consensus" on the acceleration speed of falling objects. There is no "consensus" on whether the Earth is orbiting the sun. There is no "consensus" on water being made up of H2O. These you can measure and find out for yourself. (In fact, Galileo had less than 5% "consensus" on whether the Earth orbits the sun at the time of his experiments. Facts matter. "Consensus?" Not so much.)

But,

“If the science were as certain as climate activists pretend, then there would be precisely one climate model, and it would be in agreement with measured data. As it happens, climate modelers have constructed literally dozens of climate models. What they all have in common is a failure to represent reality, and a failure to agree with the other models. As the models have increasingly diverged from the data, the climate clique have nevertheless grown increasingly confident—from cocky in 2001 (66% certainty in IPCC’s Third Assessment Report) to downright arrogant in 2013 (95% certainty in the Fifth Assessment Report).”

Still, this does not in any way equate "denial" of man-made global warming or whatever other "climate change." That is simply an unfounded conflation made up by the propagandists which so many here take on as gospel.

And it still does not let anyone "off the hook" about actually doing something that matters if you care about it so much.

Let me know if anyone finds any "errors" in the science of the NGIPCC articles and studies that I posted above.

This seems like a straw man "attack" to me.

Anyway, you should stop eating meat right now. No more meat. It's a good follow up to not having children. If "global warming" is the reason you did not have children, then I must acknowledge your belief in man-made global warming and commitment to not contributing to it. But stop the meat eating. That also contributes greatly to greenhouse gases, second only to population.

And, yes, for CO2 alone, to stay a current levels (not to mention decrease the levels), humanity would have to cut down 60% to 80%. Not happening. To decrease levels it would need negative levels. Certainly not happening.

No, I'm not asking for a "physics class." Nothing will be resolved and no one convinced of anything through the comments section. This is simply mental masturbation.

Good luck getting 350,000,000 people reduce their carbon footprint by commenting about your opinions on videosift.

I'm glad you do your little part in slowing down the increase of greenhouse gases. Like you say, it won't do much, but at least you are doing something. But relying on the government? That won't do anything. Too bad, because I also would like clean air. It may take a few generations for people to get on with a more realistic program than "petitioning their congressmen." (So maybe not having children is not that great for the environment as clearly the current generations are not getting anywhere with this.) Do whatever you are going to do or not (just like everyone else). And good luck. Who cares other than you?

If you think you know how to stop greenhouse gases to levels you like, then go ahead and do it. Or tell someone who can do something about it. See if you can convince the climate scientists who are skeptical (not the deniers) about man-made global warming. If you have some solid research, you might make a difference!

@shatterdrose, I won't even go into the "politics" of all this. Everything that involves politicians, you can count as a failure already. But, hey, I wish you luck with that.

AT this point, it's clear to me that we're not having a serious conversation. Good luck to you in getting your "representatives" to do what you want them to do and stopping global warming.

Have a blast.

If you have your own research on climate change, or your own scientific commentary, I may be willing to take a look at it. Otherwise, everyone has an opinion and commenting won't change anyone's mind.

As an aside, the environment, like nuclear war, presents one of the few problems for which it is difficult to fully opt out. In such areas, we are all at the mercy (more or less) of "the people" and their rulers. As such, your "debate" with me has contributed nothing to "fighting" global warming.

Oh fuck man, those are some of my favourite vices, but you forgot lust, you sexy dumbass.

The people aren't innocent. We have brought this on ourselves. At least I recognise that. Unlike your holier than thou stance, I recognise that I am a part of the problem, I recognise that there is a problem, and I recognise that the solution is going to be incredibly hard work either way.

Like @newtboy, I try to do my own small part, I grow some of my own food and I try to source what I can't as locally and sustainably as I can. I don't have kids, and I have plenty of trees on my property.

But I also like to snowboard and camp and lots of other things where I need a 4wd. I hate the fact that I drive it to work everyday, but it's really my only option (I don't have room for a second car, I live 15kms from work and there's no shower at my office, otherwise I'd bike.).

Despite your pathetic little insinuation to the contrary, I went to university, and I'm a highly paid professional. That means that as someone who's better off than most people in the first world country I live in, I am probably among the worst in the world in terms of resource consumption. Unless you're dirt poor and living in the third world, you are too.

I've travelled in Europe, Asia, Oceania and a small part of North America. The carbon footprint of that is massive, but I still want to see more of the world.

These are all my contributions to fucking up the environment. I recognise them, and I do what I can to mitigate them, but if I'm honest with myself, I know I'm having a net negative effect. The fact that it's less of a net negative effect than others in my socio-economic bracket is irrelevant.

But the fundamental difference between us is that I believe that if the problem can be solved (and at this stage, I'm dubious that it can) it will be solved by working together, not individually. If we are going to fix this, it will only be fixed by efficiencies of scale.

And the only way that we encourage clean industry is to level the playing field with regulation. Until there's no competitive advantage to polluting the environment (and it's always cheaper not to clean up after yourself), business will continue a race to the bottom.

But hey, you know what will fix this? Go downvote a bunch of completely unrelated videos because the nasty man was mean to you.

Anyone in favor of the state is in favor of this because the state has and always will serve those with the money. And politicians will always look out for their best interests and those of their cronies.

All government "intervention" that you so strongly support means intervention on behalf of politicians and their cronies. It would not get done otherwise.

But again, good luck with all that. Your arguing with me about it hasn't and won't change anything an iota.

And, for your information/education: These: "And no, that doesn't require overthrowing the government and going to an all berries diet. Nor me writing a book about my efforts." are ALL straw man "arguments." I didn't say anything about overthrowing the government (which is not equated with anarchy). I didn't tell you to go on a berries diet to help the environment. Nor did I say that you needed to write a book in order to save the planet or whatever.

I note that you didn't address in any way shape or form the entire wealth of scientific evidence provided by the link, and provide nothing of similar value in return (.gov or otherwise) to back up anything you say.

At the end of the day, the fact of the matter is this: the science is true whether you accept it or not, and it will be taught and passed on to the next generation because schools are full of people who went to university, and university is full of the people who are doing the science, or capable of understanding the science. Your type is dying out and if we can get over the hurdle of the next 100 years or so whilst limiting the damage you and your ilk do then i think we'll actually be alright as a species.

Scientific evidence is hard to understand. To really understand the value of statistical results, you need to understand statistics. Really thorough technical papers can take months of poring over until you eventually piece everything together. I accept that not everyone is going to be able to look at the evidence themselves and make their own minds up, so you have to choose someone to listen to. I just think you've been convinced by the wrong group, and i'm just a random person on the internet who is involved with science and tells you that NASA is a very reliable source of science. What reason would i have to trick you? Instead you want to believe a talking head on the television who has no understanding of science?

I've trying to do you a solid; i've given you the evidence in as pure a form as i could find. Why would you be combative with me? If you were interested in the science then you should approach it scientifically - be thorough, methodical and without bias. The link i provided to you IS information provided by climate scientists. I am qualified to work in climate physics btw, so i'm going to give a hazy answer to that - no i'm not currently employed in climate research.

Edit:
I see you're talking politics. Is that why you're biased to the evidence? Science doesn't bend for politics.

Stop. Feeding. The. Troll. He has pointed out that he isn't interested in actual science just giving a voice to those that deny the science. Otherwise he would be asking legitimate question, instead of his straw man of asking us if we've stopped buying plastic, or if we're vegetarians.

Trance is not making sense because he is bored and wants to argue. He's good at talking and finding things which he can then talk more and more about. At this point however he is trolling, he is not adding to the discussion he is either ballbusting or shaming.

This is supposed to be a community of discussion on Videos that we sift. Instead it's a lot of people allowing someone to waste their time and yours. Stop feeding the troll, just ignore him.

"But I also like to snowboard and camp and lots of other things where I need a 4wd."

Sure everyone has their "exceptions."

"The fact that it's less of a net negative effect than others in my socio-economic bracket is irrelevant."

Yes, totally irrelevant.

"business will continue a race to the bottom."

As well as all the individuals with their particular "exceptions."

"Unlike your holier than thou stance, I recognise that I am a part of the problem"

Haha, that doesn't sound like real contrition to me!

"If we are going to fix this, it will only be fixed by efficiencies of scale."

Good luck with that. In the meantime, enjoy traveling the world and outdoors activities. I do too.


EDIT: "I recognise that there is a problem, and I recognise that the solution is going to be incredibly hard work either way."

You're not going to do anything about it. This is all an abstraction to you. But, then, the rest of us already know that.

"I am probably among the worst in the world in terms of resource consumption. Unless you're dirt poor and living in the third world, you are too."

Yep. More reasons why those who most protest global warming are the least likely to do anything about it.

These debates are just "entertainment," to keep you occupied with nothing of consequence while you get plundered and beg for more. But, as you recognize, there are no "victims" but only willing participants. So maybe "plunder" is too strong a word. "The people" seem to actually like it. And that's their right.

I think this is a very important point. I watched a movie about the Challenger disaster yesterday with Richard Feynman on the committee. Richard Feynman was some sort of kook, who asked the experts at NASA what was the failure rate of the Challenger. They said there was a 1 in 100,000 chance that a Space Shuttle would fail catastrophically (Destroyed and all Crew Dead). Feynman knew that was "a wish" because that would mean if you launched Space Shuttles every day it would be 274 years until one failed (on average). Furthermore he polled the engineers of the shuttles and their numbers were 1 in 200 some as low as 1 in 50.

You throw numbers at people and a lot of times they don't know what to do with them. How to categorized what they're hearing. And if you throw science at them which specifically NASA was doing to the public to try and confuse them, it takes a brilliant mind such as Feynmans to explain in basic terms what is going on.

The same method to determine whether or not the world is heading for serious ecological collapse is why we are all standing here today. Why our medicines work, why our machines work, why the little rectangles that we gaze at all day bring us the entire world.

If you are curious about this sort of thing, and you come at it with an open mind and work off of a basis of scientific knowledge to understand the world, you will come to the conclusion that global climate change is happening and it's getting very serious. If you come at this with cynicism, or superiority, or especially politics you won't get it and that's on you, not science.

I've done no such thing. I've repeatedly solicited the responses to the science of the NGIPCC articles (which I posted above). Sadly, this "community" for "discussion" has not responded to these solicitations, but has instead engaged in little more than name-calling and groupthink.

EDIT: And for your convenience and for @dannym3141's edification, I'll repost them:

here, here, and here

What is it that you know that these experts don't? What are the scientific errors with which you disagree? How and where are they inaccurate?

You completely missed the point.

The point is that most people think they are not the problem. I don't even know what you think because your attitude seems to be "there isn't really a problem but at least I'm doing something about it." I'm actually impressed that you can be both contrarian and sanctimonious simultaneously.

I do do heaps of things about it. I'm not bothered listing them again, and besides it comes off as preaching, but I know it's not enough. I recognise that my contributions on their own are meaningless, and that is why I advocate for more meaningful change on a larger scale.

Yeah, I could give up the things I love to help the planet and sit back patting myself on the back while we plunge further toward disaster. Or better yet, I could engage in some kind of wishful thinking that everyone will follow my example and we'll all return to some kind agrarian paradise. Unfortunately, I don't believe that will happen.

The problem is that it's a genuinely difficult issue to solve. There are political, economic and even environmental (is nuclear a viable solution?) issues that all have to balance.

But like anything, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

Asked and answered above. I must assume you don't READ the responses to your questions.

I do read them. Where were these questions addressed?

Fixing problems often requires much more effort and commitment than simply "admitting the problem."

But I commend for you getting through an entire comment without a single slur or epithet. You must be so proud.

I'm with @newtboy. Do you actually read the responses or just cherry pick the parts that suit your agenda? Christ, even in the part you quoted I said "the first step". The paragraph before that explicitly outlined how that there were huge challenges to overcome.

And you're posting links from an organisation that

worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms... and is known "for its persistent questioning of climate science, for its promotion of 'experts' who have done little, if any, peer-reviewed climate research, and for its sponsorship of a conference in New York City in 2008 alleging that the scientific community's work on global warming is fake."

I responded to your specific quote dismissing the evidence provided because of who it was provided by, not because of what was provided. But you already know that... =)

And as previously noted, your stand is essentially unassailable because you believe you are correct and refuse to acknowledge anything that undermines that belief. As Yogi has noted, all you're doing now is acting the idiot to solicit more posts that you can randomly spray vitriol at.

ie. pretty much acting like stereotypical climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists or aggressive religious types.

In my first post after you asked, a post you replied to. I'll save you the trouble and copy it....

I'll just point out that these articles still try to claim that warmer temperatures will create better growing conditions for crops, a claim that has already been proven wrong, as the problems with extreme weather and drought far outweigh the minimal benefits. That's enough right there for me to discount them, as is the fact that they come from sites dedicated to 'denying'. I didn't need to read any farther.

*sigh* you really think I'm stupid don't you.

Don't. Feed. The. Troll.

I share some of your cynicism in terms of politicians and their incentives but climate change, whether you acknowledge it as a serious issue or not, is something that can only be addressed on an inter-governmental level.

I've said this before in a different video thread but individually minimising your carbon emissions is quite literally an exercise in self masturbatory indulgence. The vast majority of emissions are the result of industrial by-products in the product cycle. The same applies to regular pollution (and whether you use the recycling bin or not) and water wastage among other issues.

Actively selecting environmentally friendly products is generally either impossible (where alternatives don't exist) or impractical (where you're simply not provided sufficient or accurate information to effectively do so).

The efficient and effective way to reduce emissions is through a climate trading scheme. Emissions reduction occurs where it is cheapest to do and those for whom it is expensive buy the permits from those who can offset cheapest. Broad international adoption is the only way that this gets implemented because the costs are borne by everyone. In progress towards that goal, Republican opposition and the broad corporate campaign in the US against what is a scientific consensus is the primarily roadblock here.

The level of belief in climate change being caused by human activity and of being perceived as a threat in the US is woeful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country

The EU is on board. Japan is on board. Among the largest economies, the US is the laggard and perhaps China. With the US being a major funder and significant influence on international agencies, they are clearly the roadblock here. With just EU, Japan, and the US, there would be consensus in >50% of global GDP output, which should be decisive.

You should acknowledge that, if you are wrong, while you may think you're hedging your bets by being environmentally responsible as you claim, in sum you're doing more harm than good through spreading FUD.

What in the FUCK are ya going off about??! Then ya spam my fucking profile again with yer bullshit??Some serious thick-skulled hate in ya boy, pretty much sullied on ya and your gross exaggeration and continual misinterpretation of meaning in the words I care to type....Wanna discuss your issues with me?! I didn't hijack this thread,YOU DID. Fuck with me some more and let's take this shit to the public forum how about it? I'm not singling you out for hate billy,on the fucking contrary... I'd like to get some feedback from others who have to read your bullshit because the threads' not about global warming anymore..

No jackhole, you spammed MY profile page first 3 days ago, not the other way around....once again you have the order backwards. (edit: and replying to your spam message posted privately on my profile like you promised to stop doing is not spamming)
That was the problem with your attack here in this thread, you complain about something that didn't happen until after you complained about it happening.

Let's see, you go off topic on a tangent to insult someone for something you are mistaken about, you get called on it using your own words, and now you complain the mean man took the thread off topic. Ummmmm.......hmmmm.

A clue to the personality behind any passionate, ego-driven enemy of reasonable discourse? Beware of anyone who names themselves 'annoying little f*cking thing', as you can be sure they are only trying their hardest to be annoying, not informative or understanding.

Yogi's right.

Either Trancecoach is a purposeless troll, or some kind of an idiot.

Assuming for a second that he actually believes himself, ChaosEngine provided my favorite response.

Oh, then you do believe in AGW? If not, what's the straw man?
If global warming were the reason I do the things I do, you would be correct, going vegetarian would be a reasonable next step. The thing is I've done all I have done for personal, self centered reasons that benefit me personally, it just so happens that they mostly also benefit the planet. Because I intentionally didn't have children and don't believe in reincarnation, I have little incentive to attempt to save the planet beyond my lifespan. That said, I eat little beef, which is the worst meat to eat, and mostly chicken, the best meat for ecology (except for Iguana tail, a truly sustainable meat product).
CO2 staying at current levels dooms the planet fairly quickly. Raising those levels dooms if faster and more completely. I see little chance that we might actually decrease CO2 production levels, much less turn it to a negative number, which needs to happen if there's any chance in hell of stopping the run-away greenhouse effect. I see it as an issue that's far too late to stop, and can only be minimized at best, and will likely be maximized instead.
It's more like 4 billion that need to reduce their 'footprint', and another 3-4 billion that need to not expand theirs. More to the point, it's about 5 billion that need to not reproduce, while the other 3 billion only have 2 children at most. Not a likely outcome, but what is needed to solve the most pressing issues of the day.
Government is required to incentivize industry to follow suit and reduce their emissions. Without coersion, they'll do what's cheaper every time, and not cleaning up your own mess is always cheaper.
The only 'climate scientists' that are skeptical are the deniers, all others have examined the data and come to the same conclusion, just differing in the levels of change they expect. From what I see, they all underestimate the changes to come and ignore compounding features of the systems.
I'm not sure why you don't see this as a serious conversation, but that's on you.
I have given a scientific commentary. you ignored it and asked the same questions again, claiming they had been ignored. I'll try again....

CO2 saturation and temperature are linked, and have been proven to be so. Human production of CO2 is larger and faster than any natural CO2 rise in known climate history, well over 200000 years and up to hundreds of millions of years depending on what data you consider reasonable and reliable, and it's not only the amount but the rate of change that is greater than any natural climate change ever seen in the data. It's that faster rate of change that's the most dangerous, but the amount that determines the change to come. The system is slow to react, and is only now reacting to last centuries atmospheric changes. That means that even if we stopped CO2 production completely today, the effects will still be felt for centuries to come, and we aren't even slowing the rate at which we raise the amount of CO2 we produce, it's going up faster by the day thanks to those that either deny the problem or ignore it in favor of profit or simplicity. That's why estimates of the future are all lacking in my eyes, they all assume either static or reduced CO2 production, which is not reality.
We're hosed. The only option I see is to become self sufficient and die before the planet does. One more reason to not have children and instead be self sufficient as much as possible and enjoy what's left while you can.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Don't make me get the pepper spray out. Please keep it civil and avoid insult slinging and name calling. Thanks.

The planet is not going to "die." And even if it does, I have some more important things to do than this "debate" and much more productive, not to mention entertaining, to do beforehand.

The world is fully "crazy" people. And some find their way to the interwebs.

Funny how you "argue"....'you're absolutely wrong, and if your right I don't care' and 'I have more important and interesting things to do than argue', then you continue to argue. Just too funny, I guess that means you're done learning.
Tell Venus a planet can't 'die' from a runaway greenhouse effect. What I meant was die as a place where people and other 'higher level' organisms can live. Bacteria and waterbears can live with or without the planet, so they don't count.
Yes, the internet is full of crazy people, but you can change if you accept your insanity. I don't see that happening. :-)

Then you aren't looking at the data. Oceanographers consistently know that their data shows the oceans as a whole are warming fast, and becoming acidic.
Just check any reef if you don't believe them, they're all bleaching from high temperatures and not forming due to acidity. Greenhouse gasses drive the systems, both heat and acidity, but are not the only factors, just the main one's by far.

The thing is, when looked at globally, it ALWAYS gets warmer. Cherry picking data is not a way to do science.
It should not be a surprise that changes in the climate are due to climate change.
That said, climatologists are always clear that no single event can be attributed directly and solely to AGW, so that argument is really a straw man.

I missed this earlier, but I think you'll find that there are almost no climate scientists who will say that for any given weather event "it's climate changes fault".

The media like to bring this up whenever there's a big storm or heatwave, because they know that extreme weather event + AGW "controversy" = ratings. And they go talk to someone (possibly wearing a bow tie) and ask "is climate change causing this?"

At which point, most scientists will respond that while no single incident can be taken as definitive proof, increasing frequency of extreme weather events does fit within the predicted model, and if AGW continues we can expect it to be hotter in summer and also see more storms etc.

Very funny. Its always "scientists" who bring that up and who first brought that up. Do you even read those reports? Scientists and their studies (more like very flawed simulations) are always quoted. First they said (Mojib Latif and others) that there wont be any hard winters anymore due to AGW. After it became evident that those utterings were utter bullshit, they said that hard winters will be very often due to AGW (PIK and others) and after we got a normal winter again, they said that this is typical for AGW too (PIK and others again).
If it wasnt for them, this hype wouldnt be nearly where it is.

They just say what is convenient and what fits into their agenda. Its all about money and personal security. Nothing more nothing less, they just think its something different due to their indoctrination. AGW has become a huge self-sustaining (thanks to those corrupt "scientists") economic booster where insurances, scientists, politicians and many many companies (even oil companies - yes, check the global warming lobby) and their lobbies are benefiting from. Its simply not possible to talk about it objectively anymore. And if you try, people like you will come up and defend it like a religion, and prove this fact very quickly. Just look at "bio" fuels. Its a HUGE part of economy already, but it simply isnt eco-friendly at all. Instead people are starving because mono cultures are used instead of different plants for food, so much water is used for producing bio fuels that people have to suffer. The rain forest and others are cleared to be able to put more mono cultures up. Companies like Monsanto are becoming more and more powerful because of it and studies that bio fuels are bad for lots of engines are being censored or simply not funded since even car manufacturers profit from it when engines blow up sooner.

More extreme weather? Bullshit aswell. Thats simply not true, as quite a few (ignored by the "consensus") studies have shown. Its just the reports about even the tiniest things that have bloated up in the globalized and interconnected world of today and untold truths that are fooling you and of course the agendas that need to be kept upright with even the tiniest happenings that fit into it. Next time when you see a report, ask yourself if something like that would have been mentioned globally 20 or 30 years ago.

Take the flood in Pakistan for example. Oh, it was soooo bad and soooo AGW caused, oh the horror, we will all see the same thing and worse in our own countries if we continue to sin in the face of our go-- err scientists!
No, it wasnt. It was as normal as all the very common floods there before. It just wasnt mentioned that since the 70s Pakistans population has tripled and the vast majority of those people have settled down on the fertile lands around the (straightened!!!) rivers.

If that wasnt enough, people like you even completely ignore the fact, even if all their claims were true, that warm periods were ALWAYS much much better for this planet and its inhabitants than cold ones and colder ones than we have right now (we live in an ice age after all) were always bad, if not catastrophic.

And because of that fact I wont be that stupid and waste my time here with more replies, since you guys have made it very obvious already where you are coming from.

Just one little thing to think about for you guys (yeah I still have hope, though its prolly not very realistic), since the rest of my posts will get marginalized by your ignorance anyway:
Just because most scientists are pro-AGW doesnt prove crap. It was always only very few if not only a single scientist who tried to prove many other scientists wrong in their assumptions and most scientists were wrong and very arrogant, especially if they formed something like a society. But like before, there are thankfully still a few of them left who treat science as science and not as their religion or extension of their ego.

Ya know what, @Trancecoach is right. I could rebut all your points, but you've taken an ideological position that is unsupported by evidence, so clearly this is a waste of my time.

You probably genuinely believe what you've written, despite it being obvious nonsense.

One thing I can't let slide is your last little fantasy about the lone scientist against the establishment. That hasn't been true for a long time, and even then, it was generally religion or business (cf. Edison and Tesla) and not scientific consensus that impeded progress. Most major advances in science have come about by people working together, sharing results and bouncing ideas off each other. In fact, most of the time, the people we credit with great ideas (Newton, Einstein, etc) were only a step ahead of other scientists working toward the same ideas.

Yes, evidence trumps consensus, but scientists are not idiots, and there isn't some lone genius who has understood climate change when everyone else hasn't. If there was, the scientific community would recognise it.

There simply isn't any evidence to support your position that isn't easily dismissed in a few paragraphs. Read http://skepticalscience.com

The whole climate change denial (and no, I won't dignify it by calling it scepticism, that's an insult to scepticism) is marketing.

So I'll leave you, trance and the republicans in your little fantasy world where scientists and environmental campaigners have engaged in a massively profitable (please explain how, still not clear on this one) scheme to fuck up the world economy (because??? reasons, I guess) and the heroic oil companies are going to rescue us from a fate worse than a clean planet.

Meanwhile, I, the scientific community and the other humans that don't believe the earth is flat will accept the reality of climate change and move on.

I didnt read you crap properly, since you made it obvious in the first few words that you dont want to understand and do not realize that you are actually talking about yourself. Calling me a republican is another proof of you not being able to think outside of your black and white and biased prison.

Anyway, have you guys heard about the "Climate McCarthyism" lately?
Its obvious you havent (or chose to ignore it, as so many things that dont fit in your disgusting agenda), because it proves many of my points and is a disgusting proof that what you claim is not science anymore. And it has been going on for years. Many scientists have reported about such behavior, Svensmark collapsed on stage and other unbelievable things.
I have lost almost all my respect in scientists over the last few years because of this, and they were my heroes before. I remember how shocked I was when I first heard about it and didnt want to believe it. We live in 2014 and nothing has changed for thousands of years. Corruption is still the main driving factor. Objectivity? lol...


Congratulations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcAy4sOcS5M
I despise people like you. You have no idea how much.

Your derision is irrelevant. You are still wrong, and I am still right.

Those are facts.